GameBanshee Forums

Some of my religous friends have recently been trying to convert me from my 'sinful' agnostic ways, and they recently showed me this, a presentation on Daniel chapter nine. I'll try to summarize this for those who don't have time for the hour long presentation.

About the time Daniel wrote this, the Jewish people were captive in Bablyon and Jerusalem destroyed.
Daniel 9:24 says, "Seventy sevens are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy."
Assuming the 'sevens' to mean years, 7x70= 490 years.
Daniel 9:25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince comes, there will be seven sevens and sixty two sevens."
62x7+7x7= 483 years. back then they used lunar years, meaning 12 months of 30 days each, 360 days to a year. To convert to our calender, you do 483x360= 173880 days/365.25= 476 solar years.
According to the bible, the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Its well documented that Artaxerxes started his reign in 465 BC, so his twentieth year was 445, but because back then years started in the spring, the decree was actually given in 444 BC. And so -444+476+1(there is no year 0)= 33 AD. 33 AD is the considered the best date for Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, beacuse of some biblical references.
The guy doing this presentation goes on to say that there is no way Daniel could have been changed after Jesus' appearance, since there are copies from before his appearance.
He also says that there was no way that Jesus could have know this prophecy and found out the dates involved exactly enough to enter Jerusalem in that exact year and fake the fulfilment of the prophecy that way, but i think it he might have been able to find out. If the romans were such great engineers, why couldn't they also be great historians?

So what does everyone think? Has anyone ever heard of this before? Is there any flaw in the logic used? Is there any way for me to weasel out of aknowledging that there is a god? I'd really like to be able to logically maintain my agnostism, but with something so exact, it seems like it would be burying my head in the sand to ignore it. Should i convert to islam, just to annoy my friends and get revenge on them for them making me question my views of the world ?

Originally posted by Zelgadis

So what does everyone think? Has anyone ever heard of this before? Is there any flaw in the logic used? Is there any way for me to weasel out of aknowledging that there is a god? I'd really like to be able to logically maintain my agnostism, but with something so exact, it seems like it would be burying my head in the sand to ignore it. Should i convert to islam, just to annoy my friends and get revenge on them for them making me question my views of the world ?

Well I must say, Ive never heard this before, and yes, it confused the hell out of me. All those numbers just drove me off a cliff, so I would say people just read into it too much. Half of Christianity lies in faith rather than open facts. I believe most everything in the Bible happened while some stuff is simply symbolic.

Never convert to a religeon for other reasons other than you truly believe in its values and history and if you truly believe in it. To convert to a different religeon just to get revenge or annoyance is not such a good idea.

I know I didnt answer all your questions mainly because the story just confused the hell out of me.

Never convert to a relegion because of numbers! If you didn't believe it before, don't be swayed by facts. If you believe in Christianity, go do it...

Zelgadis, as other have already said, never let other people convince you what shall be your personal faith.

However, the passage your friends refer to is a passage that is often used by religious organisations to "prove" that the bible was right because this prophecy appears to be historically correct. There are two main reasons to be highly sceptical to this claim:

1. The book of Daniel is believed to be written after the fact. A majority of bible scholars believe most of it was written around 165 BC, all of it somewhere between 200 BC - 100 AD. It is not so difficult to write down a correct prophecy after it has already happened.
2. The bible contains a lot of prophecies, some may be correct, some not. If I were to write down 100 prophecies myself, statistically speaking some of them would turn out correct without godly intervention. Maybe it is not so fantastic that a few profecies are correct.

For a very good and objective academic view of how and when different parts of the bible were written, check out this:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html

Originally posted by Zelgadis
Is there any flaw in the logic used? Is there any way for me to weasel out of aknowledging that there is a god? I'd really like to be able to logically maintain my agnostism, but with something so exact, it seems like it would be burying my head in the sand to ignore it.

Speaking about logics, one must realise that there is no way to logically demostrate that god does exist, teologists and philosophers have tried this since the early middle ages without success. There is also no way to logically prove that god does not exist. This is the nature of logics, one must understand the limit of logics. You can never demostrate that something doesn't exist with logics, there is no way of proving pink unicorns doesn't exist. You can only say "I haven't seen any", but this doesn't prove they don't exist in another dimension, in another corner of the universe, or in some deep caves on earth where nobody has been. Logics is a limited way of analysing things, and as Tybaltus points out beautifully, a person's choice of whether or not to believe in a christian (or other) god, lies in faith not in logics or proof. Actually, logically speaking it makes most sense to be an agnostic like you already are, since we can neither prove or disprove the existance of a god.

I don't think it is sound to try to convince someone to join a religion based of facts. Religions are based in the realm of faith, You believe what you believe. facts to me are the realm of science and logic, and I have never seen logic as having much to do with religion.

To me, you either belive, or you don't. If the argument that is presented seems compelling, remember, it IS just one argument. If you want, take the time to research for yourself. In the end, you will probably find some things that seem like proof, and some that seem contradictory. In the end, no one can bring you to any religion but yourself. If you accept a religion based on "facts", then sooner or later some other fact is going to arise to lead you to question your choice.

Like I said, you believe, or you don't. Don't let anyone tell you what you believe.

i was brought to church a couple of times and my friend kept on trying to bring me in (she is a christian).
She told me about God and jesus and told me how catholics are reading the wrong stuff.
She also told me about how god talked to her and convinced her to join the faith and how all sinners go to hell.
But i truly believe that she needed a God at that point of her life and that was way she had convert to Chirstianity.
So what if the prophesies are true, Siddartha Gautama is a real person too...

O well i think in the end it lies with what your perspective of life is and then decide what you need.
Like my friend who converted into a christian, she told me how she felt like she had found a purpose in life and a place she belonged to.

Numbers are comparatively less important to how you feel inside.

Thanks everyone for your input, and i do agree that i shouldn't have faith in a religion just because of facts. Can anyone think of any rebutals in addition to CEs? I'd feel better if i had several things to argue against the authenticity of daniel 9 with.

I can't think of any right off the top of my head. But in my experience, no amount of rebuttal will do much good. You basically can't argue with a matter of faith, even if it is the faithful who start the debate based on facts and logic.

Originally posted by Zelgadis
Thanks everyone for your input, and i do agree that i shouldn't have faith in a religion just because of facts. Can anyone think of any rebutals in addition to CEs? I'd feel better if i had several things to argue against the authenticity of daniel 9 with.

First off, "neither religion nor religioius belief can be supported by facts" is sufficient in itself to make its point. Your missionary friends will no doubt object, but that's the way missionaries are. Offer them a deal. Suggest that if they try attempting to convert you, you keep being their friend. It's a good test of friendship.

But if you need other evidence for yourself...

There's no indication there in Daniel that Jesus is referred to. Historically, he was not considered "the Messiah," by his followers or by himself. People did subsequently build a religion surrounding him several decades after his death, but as a Jew and a conservative reformer, he would probably have been horrified to see what people what made of his life, his actions and his stories.

With all due respect, fable...

Originally posted by fable
First of all, @Eminem, this is not a thread for the debate of Christianity. @Zelgadis asked for assistance in refuting his missionary friend's remarks, and that was provided. Please don't spam the thread.

...though it maybe an another case of semantics, but to say that Eminem was spamming the thread is for me a subtle way of saying that what Eminem posted was nonsense.

And since this is Zelgadis thread he asked this question:

Originally posted by Zelgadis

Thanks everyone for your input, and i do agree that i shouldn't have faith in a religion just because of facts. Can anyone think of any rebutals in addition to CEs? I'd feel better if i had several things to argue against the authenticity of daniel 9 with.

...which Eminem answered.

Although I agree fully with you that Eminem should not lead the topic astray and start on a thread as you mentioned, calling it spamming is not a good choice of word.

@Zelgadis: As just like everyone mentioned, I strongly believe that you choose what you like to believe in because it satisfies the way you like to lead your life. I don't think muslims, christians or other religious groups would like the idea of joining their faith other than the Faith itself.

@Mah, what I read was:

Is there any flaw in the logic used? Is there any way for me to weasel out of aknowledging that there is a god?

And it seems from @Zel's remarks later that this is what he meant. I don't think he was looking for anybody to help convert him. And since he specifically asked in his thread title that no spam be added, I still think, with respect, that Eminem's remarks were spam.

I also think you're misreading Zel's request in your second quote of his. He didn't ask for rebuttals *of* CE; he asked for additional rebuttals to that offered *by* CE against his friend's argument. Read it again, and see if you agree.

If anybody disagrees with this decision, feel free to PM me about it. But that's the way I see it. I've no problem with a discussion of religious issues, but not in a topic deliberately intended to answer a specific question, and marked "no spam plz."

Spoken well and true...

...@fable: point taken.

@Zel:...if your friends are already to the point that they begin to annoy you by aggressively convince you to join them, tell them that true friends accept each other of who they are and not what they want them to be...

@Eminem, I removed your most recent post. It was a reply to mine, which was in turn a reply to your off-topic comments, attempting to argue in favor of Daniel, and against CE's refutation and my own. In fairness, I went back and removed my earlier reply to you as well, and your original spam of this topic. It's probably what I should have done from the first. Spam and a serious refuration of spam are just two sides of the same coin.

I'm surprised no-one has pointed Zel towards BibleBabble.com yet. It's terribly biased and makes no bones about it, and is as one-sided and heavy-handed as many extremist right-wing Chrisitian sites, but it may be what you're after.

EDIT-Read the guestbook, it's absolutely hilarious.

Also, another thing, is there any proof that Jesus actually existed? Cause I honestly doubt he did.

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag
Also, another thing, is there any proof that Jesus actually existed? Cause I honestly doubt he did.

Yes. I believe they found records of Pontius Pilot's orders or reactions to a person saying he is the prophet and the order of his execution. This refers directly to Jesus. I believe there is more proof of his existance, but I dont recall it. Its not whether Jesus lived or not, because he most assuredly did, it whether you believe he is the messiah, and that lies in faith of your own.

Ah, has Eminem been here? A pity I missed him, I haven't seen him for a while.

Regarding the historical existance of a person called Jesus/Yeshua or Christ being crucified by Pontus Pilatius, yes, there are several independant record of such persons, the problem is that there is no way of saying there records refer to the same person, or that they refer to the same person and the bible speaks about. It is very likely that Jesus did exist as a historical person, but as Tybaltus says, there is of course the major issue of whether we view his as messiah, son of god, or as one of many preachers and profets that spread their message among people in this area during that time.

Re: Re: Fellow SYMians, I need your wisdom! (no spam plz)

Originally posted by C Elegans
Speaking about logics, one must realise that there is no way to logically demostrate that god does exist, teologists and philosophers have tried this since the early middle ages without success. There is also no way to logically prove that god does not exist.

Ahhh, don't be put off @Zel. Of course our distinguished friend CE does not mean this at all What she means is - she does not know of any proof for or against god's existence...

Anyway, what is your position here? As far as belief goes, if you are convinced by your friends arguments, then you are already converted. One cannot consciously chose what one believes (sadly), so if you do not believe him, you have a valid enough reason already (he hasn't proved it). I'm sure you realise that it is damned near impossible to prove anything outside mathematics or formal logic, but as long as you are not convinced, that is good enough justification . If you are convinced then there is no point denying yourself a belief-system which may bring your life happiness and order, and conservatism and stubborness will get you nowhere ...

Before this gets out of hand, I'll like to restate what is probably the most pertinent part of Zel's initial post:

Is there any way for me to weasel out of aknowledging that there is a god?

His view is implicit in those remarks, and he has requested no spam. This is not a thread for the discussion of various aspects of worship, for proving any particular religion, or for arguing with Zel's own perceptions of religion. I have no objection to other threads devoted to any religious themes, but let's stay focused, here, on Zel's question.